Note: This topic has been unedited for 1073 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This cube says everything

Part of the reason we had a VFS a few months ago was so that there would be more admins to keep the feature cue rolling over. I think there have been two dozen times so far this year that the article has not been changed including since that vote. If it is rolled over late...sometimes the featured article is only featured for ten hours or less (which is unfair to the author of the article with almost no featured time) while other ones are featured for 36 hours or 60 hours even. Theres two reasons why I think this is a serious problem. Like I said...its unfair to the authors. I also think it makes the site look bad. Everything about our front page is great, has taken hundreds of hours to look good, and all other content on the page is updated except the feature (when it stays for two days). Every other site I know of keeps it rolling over. I honestly think it makes the site look broken if you see the same feature the next day, and if you are a returning reader, as a bit of a let down. Wikipedia changes it every day, on the dot, and we are parodying them. Every other satire website changes it on the dot as well. I understand why this doesnt happen, as its not a delegated task and sometimes just doesnt get done. I know some people dont care, but I really really really really really really really really wish the cue was rolled over on time.

I propose that a couple users be given permission to edit the feature cue. No need to make them admins. I would happily be one. It would also be a good privelage to have for some aspiring admins (note I am NOT an aspiring admin). This would really be swell if something like this could happen. --ShabiDOO 14:47, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Reason it isn't changed every day depends on how many articles have 10 votes or more. This week there were quite a few but by Friday only a couple left. To prevent a gap, the features are then changed every other day. Otherwise we would have to start featuring articles with 9 votes or less which I don't want to see. Regards the timing, I have done it this week but as 1.00am is too late in my time zone, I have done it a few hours later when I am up and around. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:25, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Then can we not feature the articles from the retro week voting that didnt make the final cut (there are many good articles nominated, but there was so much competition they didnt get re-featured. They can be used in the case that there isnt an article with 10 votes? I can easily make a list in order of voting strength. --ShabiDOO 18:31, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Queueing an article on the day prior makes more sense - assuming it had sufficient votes. The DPL used doesn't update the front page until the relevant date, and makes a calculation of when the last article was featured (based upon the {{FA}}). I had set up the mirror site for a while where if there wasn't a feature for that date it would display the top ten articles from an earlier year. (Of course, since then I've been advised that I don't know enough about the process or the coding to go anywhere near the FA template.) The change to the actual templates used would be minimal. There have been a few times where the feature hasn't been updated when the health of articles was high enough to warrant it, but I can only think of one time that has happened since Romartus took on the responsibility of doing that. As for having editors able to update the feature queue - it would require the creation of a "trusted user" access that would be above auto confirmed/auto patrolled but below administrator, and a protection level equivalent. The least complicated way to do this is create a protection level that only rollbackers or above could edit. This would require a vote from the majority of users and then have it handed on to Wikia to implement. This kind of thing has been proposed numerous times, is very doable, but has had strong opposition from a number of barely active administrators who become vocal when this sort of thing is suggested. • Puppy's talk page • 01:11 19 Aug

FYI: Wikipedia articles are set up to feature anywhere between a week to a month in advance, from what I remember, which is why they always click over with the stroke of midnight. • Puppy's talk page • 01:18 19 Aug

Good point about Romartus. Indeed...since retro week the articles have rolled over on cue, except when there was no qualified articles, of which rule I didn't know about. Im sure Romartus can take care of it, so why don't we forget about letting users take care of it for now? --ShabiDOO 01:26, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

It really isn't that much of an issue. Is it? --ChiefjusticePSX 17:41, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

A good idea to better uncy, but not needed now. There are so many good unfeatured articles that the need may never arise. But when it does, feature Boner. first! Aleister 17:48 aug20 '12

I don't think it is at all a waste of time to re-feature an old article instead of keeping the same one for two days. How is that a waste of time? It's not a made up problem, as I said, the site looks broken if we keep the same feature for two days and its a let down to regular readers. Well...it seemed like a no brainer to me at least. --ShabiDOO 00:20, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Al has a point. The bigger problem is lack of nominations/votes for highlight. I think the issue there also comes back to lack of active members. And as Shabby has pointed out, a "broken" main page doesn't attract membership. And you should never start a sentence with a preposition. The re-feature is a stop gap solution at best, but it's an easy fix. • Puppy's talk page • 12:38 21 Aug

I know this would conflict with our whole "parodying Wikipedia" thing somewhat, but we could always completely redesign the feature system to better fit our smaller, less active userbase. The current one was designed for larger participation and a greater population of feature-ready articles. Since then, our userbase has shrunk and our standards have risen. Structural change may be necessary. --T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 17:01, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Just a rough sketch of an angle of a plan, at the moment, of a weekly newsletter-style cluster feature system. We could curate 2 to 3 new features a week with a retro features and li'l Anniversary jokes and trivia and tidbits and fuckin whatever. If this doesn't replace the system, it would be a great way to engage readers (If we have the methods for setting up an elist available) on a regular, less-intensive basis.

This is, again, a very rough idea and a pretty big departure from the current Wikipedia-parodying setup. I have every doubt in my body that it would pass with today's community. However, we should definitely brainstorm other ways to improve the current system. --T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:06, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

That sounds frighteningly similar to my "Prime Direction" idea going back a year or so ago. With a newsletter type system we could incorporate sponsorship (yes, I mean advertising) without infringing on the site. Sponsorship means ability to advertise ourselves off site as well. • Puppy's talk page • 09:54 22 Aug

Hmm. TKF has a point. Puppy has a point. The cookie monster has a point. We will all have to ponder this. Interesting ideas. Scary ideas. What to do? --ShabiDOO 10:13, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Against. I don't think of it as really that embarrassing that we forget once every few months, and it's not really a problem. ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 10:22, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Frosty...this isn't about admins forgetting to do something, this is the current the policy. An admin notes there is no applicable article to feature. He then does nothing (extended the feature to two days). It is equally simple, painless (and more productive) to refeature a previous article. So...feature one for two days (and perhaps have the site look unmaintained) or feature two articles. To be...or not to be. --ShabiDOO 13:33, August 22, 2012 (UTC)